<!--quoteo(post=1798360:date=Sep 13 2010, 09:36 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Sep 13 2010, 09:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1798360"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And that's our job how?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Meh, I meant implementation on general level. Going to the details and discussing the actual design instead of just speaking of impairment as some obscure term in general. There's probably some better way for describing that, bad choise of words by me.
<!--quoteo(post=1798404:date=Sep 14 2010, 02:15 AM:name=Lazer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lazer @ Sep 14 2010, 02:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1798404"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let me answer: by waiting and actually testing it!!
Do I win?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Testing != Implementation
So no.
Bacillus: But it's not our job as testers/players/fans, it's theirs as developers. You are absolutely right when you say "Almost everything can work with proper implementation." You are still completely right when you say "The difficulties start when you try to find out what kind of implementation actually works." But the thought just ends there, in regards to the discussion* in this thread. In this context, the "you" in that sentence is Unknown Worlds alone. As Lazer states, to find out if an implementation works, you have to test it, but for it to be testable, it must first be <b>implemented</b>, and the discussion* here is <b>against initial implementation</b>. Why do I feel like I'm just pointing out the obvious, but that it is sadly necessary?
So no.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe the context was to figure out which implementation worked best. The most useful way to find out is to test, so you concluding no because testing != implementation is rather flawed logic. The results of testing newly implemented features will decide if a feature needs to be <b>reimplemented</b> in a different manner, removed, or (hopefully) accepted. At least that was what I got taught in college...
Isn't/hasn't this been the point of the alpha test?
No. The <b>context</b> is <b>this thread</b>, with people arguing against the initial implementation of player impairment/effects etc. (And I very clearly stated this already.) This is just semantics - you actually agree with me, but you don't seem to notice it.
Please, no blurred/ or obscured vision it makes FPS low which is similar to lag, so moving around and aiming will really be difficult DUE TO the FPS, NOT because of the blurred/ obscured vision. unless you make everything nearly impossible to make out, or blacked out completely. In this case it will not be an FPS issue but more of a visual distortion issue players will have to worry about. I do not see slight visual impairment worth putting into the game because it usually cause more of an FPS issue, than it does hinder a players visual ability, unless lowering the players fps to attain impairment was the plan; then great job. lolol
Comments
Meh, I meant implementation on general level. Going to the details and discussing the actual design instead of just speaking of impairment as some obscure term in general. There's probably some better way for describing that, bad choise of words by me.
Do I win?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Testing != Implementation
So no.
Bacillus: But it's not our job as testers/players/fans, it's theirs as developers. You are absolutely right when you say "Almost everything can work with proper implementation." You are still completely right when you say "The difficulties start when you try to find out what kind of implementation actually works." But the thought just ends there, in regards to the discussion* in this thread. In this context, the "you" in that sentence is Unknown Worlds alone. As Lazer states, to find out if an implementation works, you have to test it, but for it to be testable, it must first be <b>implemented</b>, and the discussion* here is <b>against initial implementation</b>.
Why do I feel like I'm just pointing out the obvious, but that it is sadly necessary?
harimau is right in every way. flayra, i hope ur listening
So no.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the context was to figure out which implementation worked best. The most useful way to find out is to test, so you concluding no because testing != implementation is rather flawed logic. The results of testing newly implemented features will decide if a feature needs to be <b>reimplemented</b> in a different manner, removed, or (hopefully) accepted. At least that was what I got taught in college...
Isn't/hasn't this been the point of the alpha test?
it makes FPS low which is similar to lag,
so moving around and aiming will really be difficult DUE TO the FPS,
NOT because of the blurred/ obscured vision.
unless you make everything nearly impossible to make out, or blacked out completely.
In this case it will not be an FPS issue but more of a visual distortion issue players will have to worry about.
I do not see slight visual impairment worth putting into the game because it usually cause more of an FPS issue,
than it does hinder a players visual ability,
unless lowering the players fps to attain impairment was the plan; then great job.
lolol
Love you,
Fade :)